RallyIQ

ATP · Right-handed · 33 charted matches · 2021–2024

Maxime Cressy

Archetype: Serve-and-volleyer · Net rusher (6)

Against an average opponent

Serve points won 68.2% ±2.4 raw 68.9% · tour 63.4% · 2,857 points
Return points won 33.4% ±2.5 raw 29.1% · tour 36.6% · 2,772 points

Serve and return points won, refitted against every opponent at once so a record built on weak or strong opposition is put on the same scale. Career, all surfaces, with a 90% margin. Raw is the plain share of points won.

Value per 100 shots

Direction choice +0.07 ±0.13 better than 77% of ATP · raw +0.08
Shot selection +1.15 ±0.15 better than 99% of ATP · raw +1.15
Execution −1.85 ±0.64 better than 5% of ATP · raw −1.78
Tactical adaptability +0.09 first serves toward what's working, set to set · 29 matches
Adaptation speed +0.15 same, every two to three service games · per 100 first serves
Points left on the table 3.70 per 100 shots vs best direction · lower than 6% of ATP

Points gained per 100 shots compared with an average tour player in the same position, adjusted for the strength of the opponents faced, with a 90% margin (shots clustered by match). Raw is before the opponent adjustment. Built on 10,193 shots.

Shot expected value

The share of points Maxime Cressy goes on to win after each option in the positions they face most often, shrunk toward tour average when the sample is small. Showing the 8 most-used options; teal marks the best one with at least 30 shots.

Serve +1: drive to your middle, you at net

position worth 61% to the average player · 512 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH volley crosscourt 28% 66.4%±6.1 62.9%
FH volley crosscourt 26% 62.6%±6.4 68.7%
FH volley down the line 16% 66.4%±7.7 63.8%
BH volley through the middle 12% 49.5%±9.2 43.2%
BH volley down the line 9% 61.6%±9.8 58.4%
FH volley through the middle 9% 59.9%±10.1 46.6%

Return +1: drive to your middle

position worth 50% to the average player · 280 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 25% 35.0%±8.3 52.4%
FH through the middle 15% 39.8%±10.3 46.5%
BH slice through the middle 12% 49.4%±11.2 43.3%
BH slice crosscourt 9% 32.6%±11.4 45.0%
BH through the middle 6% 37.6%±12.9 46.5%
BH crosscourt 6% 41.4%±13.1 48.7%
FH down the line 6% 37.8%±12.9 51.8%
BH down the line 6% 46.3%±13.7 48.4%

Return +1: drive to your backhand side

position worth 44% to the average player · 238 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
BH slice crosscourt 25% 36.5%±8.9 40.9%
BH slice through the middle 24% 34.9%±9.0 32.6%
BH crosscourt 22% 37.5%±9.3 46.9%
BH through the middle 19% 36.3%±9.8 43.0%
BH down the line 8% 38.0%±12.8 44.2%

Return +1: drive to your forehand side

position worth 41% to the average player · 197 shots

OptionUsedWin %Tour
FH crosscourt 41% 27.8%±7.3 45.3%
FH through the middle 27% 34.1%±9.1 39.4%
FH slice through the middle 12% 23.0%±10.6 24.5%
FH down the line 10% 35.4%±12.4 40.9%

Serve under pressure

Pressure predictability index +18 How much less varied Maxime Cressy's first-serve direction gets on break points. Positive means easier to read. Based on 164 break-point first serves.

Deuce court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 54% 67% ▲ 81% / 73%
Body 5% 7% 68% / 63%
T 41% 26% ▼ 81% / 75%

1,449 normal · 42 break-point 1st serves

Ad court

1st serveUsageBreak ptWon when in
Wide 63% 80% ▲ 78% / 73%
Body 5% 6% 61% / 63%
T 32% 15% ▼ 78% / 72%

1,222 normal · 122 break-point 1st serves

Is the serve mix in equilibrium?

Game theory says a well-mixed server wins equally often with every direction they use. If one direction wins more, it's underused and points are being left behind. This is the minimax test Walker and Wooders ran on Wimbledon finals, applied to every charted first serve. Win rates include faults. "Optimal" allows for returners reading a habit. No measurable response (−0.05 ± 0.15 points per 100 serves for every 10 points of habitual usage), measured from ATP servers whose mix drifted between matches. Shifts stay within the range servers' habits actually vary, the only range that response was measured over.

Deuce court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide54% 73.5%±2.5 n=809 67% ▲
Body6% 67.3%±7.3 n=82 0% ▼
T40% 68.9%±3.0 n=600 33% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.07).
Optimal mix: +0.8 per 100 first serves.

Ad court

1st serveUsagePoints wonOptimal
Wide64% 66.5%±2.6 n=865 77% ▲
Body5% 62.9%±7.9 n=71 0% ▼
T30% 66.4%±3.7 n=408 23% ▼

Consistent with an optimal mix (p = 0.68).
Optimal mix: +0.4 per 100 first serves.

Exploitability 0.60 points per 100 first serves What the optimal mix would win over the current one, both courts. More exploitable than 100% of ATP servers. Tested on matches they weren't fitted on, ATP mixes picked this way win 0.33 per 100 first serves on average.

Repeating the previous direction to the same court: +1.4±2.9 points per 100 against switching. Negative means returners read repeats. Tour-wide, repeating costs women about 0.4 points per 100 and costs men nothing, so men's returners don't measurably anticipate direction. (1,510 repeats, 1,259 switches.)

Return by serve direction

Return points won against each serve direction, compared with the tour average.

ServeCourtDirectionPointsWonvs tour
1stAd courtBody 109 32% −4.5±6.5
1stAd courtT 350 22% −6.3±3.5
1stAd courtWide 336 20% −7.0±3.5
1stDeuce courtBody 135 33% −3.4±6.0
1stDeuce courtT 374 23% −1.7±3.5
1stDeuce courtWide 461 20% −7.6±2.9
2ndAd courtBody 233 43% −6.9±5.0
2ndAd courtT 85 46% −3.4±7.6
2ndAd courtWide 192 41% −7.6±5.4
2ndDeuce courtBody 243 41% −8.1±4.9
2ndDeuce courtT 150 46% −4.2±6.1
2ndDeuce courtWide 91 42% −5.6±7.4

Signature patterns

Recurring sequences that win more than Maxime Cressy's own baseline, ranked by edge weighted by how often they're used.

Serve → +1

  1. Wide serve (deuce court) → FH volley down the line used 3.4% · won 71% · −8.1±7.1 vs own baseline
  2. Wide serve (ad court) → FH volley crosscourt used 5.2% · won 72% · −7.2±5.9 vs own baseline
  3. Wide serve (deuce court) → BH volley crosscourt used 4.6% · won 71% · −8.2±6.3 vs own baseline
  4. T serve (deuce court) → BH volley crosscourt used 2.9% · won 65% · −13.8±7.9 vs own baseline
  5. Wide serve (ad court) → BH volley down the line used 3.8% · won 67% · −12.1±7.0 vs own baseline

Return

  1. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, deep used 2.2% · won 39% · +8.2±9.9 vs own baseline
  2. vs T serve (deuce court) → BH through the middle, mid used 2.4% · won 38% · +7.4±9.6 vs own baseline
  3. vs T serve (ad court) → FH through the middle, mid used 2.5% · won 35% · +4.9±9.3 vs own baseline
  4. vs wide serve (ad court) → BH crosscourt, mid used 2.8% · won 35% · +4.4±9.0 vs own baseline
  5. vs wide serve (deuce court) → FH crosscourt, mid used 3.7% · won 33% · +3.0±8.1 vs own baseline

Rally, consecutive own shots

  1. FH through the middle → FH through the middle used 2.8% · won 43% · +8.4±11.3 vs own baseline
  2. BH slice through the middle → FH through the middle used 3.1% · won 40% · +5.0±11.0 vs own baseline
  3. FH through the middle → BH slice crosscourt used 3.1% · won 40% · +5.0±11.0 vs own baseline
  4. FH through the middle → FH crosscourt used 4.6% · won 38% · +3.9±9.8 vs own baseline
  5. FH through the middle → BH slice through the middle used 3.2% · won 37% · +2.5±10.7 vs own baseline

Discovered sequences

Mined from every me → opponent → me run of three shots, with no templates. Ranked by how much more often Maxime Cressy wins the point once the sequence happens, weighted by how often it happens. Think of them as chess openings.

  1. Wide serve → FH through the middle return → BH volley crosscourt used 1.3% · won 65% · +18.6±9.6 vs own baseline · +4.9 vs tour on the same sequence
  2. Wide serve → BH through the middle return → FH volley crosscourt used 2.0% · won 59% · +12.7±8.5 vs own baseline · −9.2 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Daniil Medvedev (5/12), Grigor Dimitrov (4/8)
  3. T serve → BH through the middle return → BH volley crosscourt used 1.2% · won 61% · +14.5±9.9 vs own baseline · +10.9 vs tour on the same sequence Disrupted by Daniil Medvedev (3/6)
  4. Wide serve → BH slice through the middle return → FH volley crosscourt used 0.6% · won 67% · +20.1±11.9 vs own baseline · +10.7 vs tour on the same sequence
  5. Wide serve → FH through the middle return → FH volley down the line used 1.1% · won 57% · +10.3±10.4 vs own baseline · −7.0 vs tour on the same sequence
  6. Wide serve → BH crosscourt return → BH volley down the line used 0.7% · won 58% · +11.9±11.6 vs own baseline · +10.5 vs tour on the same sequence

Strengths and vulnerabilities

Value per 100 shots compared with the average player hitting (strengths) or facing (vulnerabilities) the same shot. Only shot types seen at least 120 times.

Hurts opponents most with

T 1st serve · deuce court+3.3600
Wide 1st serve · ad court+3.2865
Wide 1st serve · deuce court+2.9809
T 1st serve · ad court+1.8408
BH slice to the middle · rally+1.4187

Most exposed to

FH to their forehand · serve +1−3.1297
FH to their backhand · serve +1−1.8357
T 1st serve · deuce court−1.8620
Wide 1st serve · deuce court−1.8654
T 1st serve · ad court−1.7539

Best-equipped opponents

Active players whose shot mix lines up best against these weaknesses, by structural compatibility per 100 rally shots: Rafael Nadal +2.34, Jack Draper +1.86, Miomir Kecmanovic +1.73, Nishesh Basavareddy +1.62, Pedro Martinez +1.50

Favourable matchups

Fabian Marozsan +0.46, Bernard Tomic +0.21, Daniil Medvedev +0.18, Roberto Bautista Agut −0.01, Pedro Martinez −0.07

Active players who are best at the shot in the top weakness: Luciano Darderi, Brandon Nakashima, Milos Raonic, Francisco Cerundolo, Rinky Hijikata

Tactical fingerprint

Each bar shows how far a style trait is from the ATP average, in standard deviations.

Serve & volley81%
Backhand slice60%
Point-ending shots37.9%
Points at net26%
Wide serves · ad64%
Through the middle32%
Wide serves · deuce54%
Unforced errors / shot12.3%
BH down the line25%
Deep returns31%
Chipped returns13%
1st serve in60%
Drop shots / shot1.0%
T serves · deuce40%
T serves · ad30%
Run-around forehands3%
Forehand share45%
Avg rally length2.6
FH down the line19%

Plays most like

  1. John Mcenroe 1978–1992 plan v
  2. David Wheaton 1990–1994 plan v
  3. Max Mirnyi 2001–2006 plan v
  4. Goran Ivanisevic 1990–2001 plan v
  5. Pierre Hugues Herbert 2014–2025 plan v
  6. Patrick Rafter 1993–2001 plan v
  7. Todd Martin 1992–2001 plan v
  8. Mischa Zverev 2013–2020 plan v

Closest from another era

  1. John Mcenroe 1978–1992
  2. David Wheaton 1990–1994
  3. Max Mirnyi 2001–2006

Charted matches